There are no rules for a main hand or offhand in 5e.
Can a character hold two one handed weapons at the same time and choose which weapon to use with their attack action? Additionally, can a character with multiattack use either weapon once and apply their modifier to both damage rolls?
Does anything change if one or both weapons are not light?
I am not interested in making bonus action attacks with the weapons.
A) YES. You can hold two one-handed weapons and choose which weapon to use with your Attack action. If you have the "Extra Attack" feature from your class you can even switch between attacks. Both of those attacks would use your modifier.
However, if you do not have the Extra Attack feature, you can only make one attack per turn, which means you choose which weapon you are using for that one attack. Whichever one of those attacks you decide to make would use your modifier.
2) NO. There is no such thing as "multiattack" for player characters in the 5th edition rules. Some monsters have multiattack, as it is a monster feature. Unless you are a wildshaped Druid or polymorphed character, you will very likely not have access to multiattack.
3) NO. The only thing that requires both weapons be light is Two Weapon Fighting, cited below. As long as both weapons can be wielded with one hand, you could wield them both, you just could not take advantage of either weapon for Two Weapon Fighting, which requires both be light melee weapons.
The only other way to use both weapons is from the effect of Two Weapon Fighting, which uses your bonus action. I know you're not interested in using your bonus action, but here's the rule for clarity:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a lightmelee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a differentlightmelee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
This is quite confusing. Do you mean 1st level rogue cant attack two times per turn? Two daggers for example. Fighter gains Extra attack at level 5 for example.
This is quite confusing. Do you mean 1st level rogue cant attack two times per turn?
Daggers are light melee weapons. A rogue at 1st level could attack with one dagger as their action, and then as a bonus action use Two Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If they do, they can't use their Bonus Action for something else.
Ok, thanks now I found the actual mechanic from Player's Handbook, page 195:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Page 189:
BONUS ACTIONS Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take. You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
As a follow up question, does holding two weapons but only using one for any attack action (with no two weapon fighting bonus action) count against the duelling fighting style? Which states you can only wield one weapon to gain the bonus damage.
As a follow up question, does holding two weapons but only using one for any attack action (with no two weapon fighting bonus action) count against the duelling fighting style? Which states you can only wield one weapon to gain the bonus damage.
In short, how is the term wielding determined?
Other areas that wielding may affect things is if a monk picks up and holds a non monk weapon, does this count as wielding it if no attacks are made with it. Can the monk still use unarmed attacks and subsequent bonus action attacks from the martial arts feature? It states that while you are unarmed and wielding only monk weapons, you gain the benefits from martial arts.
To further complicate things, can that monk be holding two weapons and not use them for attacks (essentially treating them like any item), while making unarmed attacks and still gaining the benefits of martial arts. Unarmed strikes need not be made with fists, but could be kicks, elbows or even a head butt.
As a follow up question, does holding two weapons but only using one for any attack action (with no two weapon fighting bonus action) count against the duelling fighting style? Which states you can only wield one weapon to gain the bonus damage.
In short, how is the term wielding determined?
Other areas that wielding may affect things is if a monk picks up and holds a non monk weapon, does this count as wielding it if no attacks are made with it. Can the monk still use unarmed attacks and subsequent bonus action attacks from the martial arts feature? It states that while you are unarmed and wielding only monk weapons, you gain the benefits from martial arts.
To further complicate things, can that monk be holding two weapons and not use them for attacks (essentially treating them like any item), while making unarmed attacks and still gaining the benefits of martial arts. Unarmed strikes need not be made with fists, but could be kicks, elbows or even a head butt.
Holding a weapon and not attacking with it might be best discussed with your DM, barring a better answer with a source backing the ruling. I would certainly allow it provided that you clarified that you were attacking with something other than that hand that carried the weapon. Attacks made with that hand would be very dependent on how you worded the attack about how I would rule it.
I'm learning towards no on the dueling fighting stance, but I would want to read the rules on that and probably need to hear how you described the attack. I could conceive of a scenario where I wouldn't hold it against you, since shields can be used with the dueling style. Additionally, I'd probably consider the weapon being held when making the attack, since some weapons are heavier and a touch unwieldy.
The attack would in no way involve the held weapon, gain no benefits from the weapon.
For example, a fighter has two swords. One that deals fire damage, one that deals cold damage. He attacks twice with extra attack using the fire blade. Noticing the creature has resistance to fire damage, on his next turn he attacks with the cold blade for his two attacks. When one blade is the only weapon being used, the other blade would be lowered, possibly allowing for the dueling fighting style to add its damage as only one weapon was wielded.
I would think dueling does not apply if the fighter decided to make one weapon attack with each blade on the same attack action.
Dual wielding and defensive duelist feats both state you have to be wielding a weapon to gain their benefits. Taking any benefit from these would prevent dueling’s +2 damage as you have to consider yourself wielding the weapon to do so.
The attack would in no way involve the held weapon, gain no benefits from the weapon.
For example, a fighter has two swords. One that deals fire damage, one that deals cold damage. He attacks twice with extra attack using the fire blade. Noticing the creature has resistance to fire damage, on his next turn he attacks with the cold blade for his two attacks. When one blade is the only weapon being used, the other blade would be lowered, possibly allowing for the dueling fighting style to add its damage as only one weapon was wielded.
I would think dueling does not apply if the fighter decided to make one weapon attack with each blade on the same attack action.
Dual wielding and defensive duelist feats both state you have to be wielding a weapon to gain their benefits. Taking any benefit from these would prevent dueling’s +2 damage as you have to consider yourself wielding the weapon to do so.
Going just by “what words mean,” if you’re holding the weapon in your hand such that you [i]can[/i] attack properly with it, you’re wielding it.
Additionally, in your example, even if you don’t attack, you are gaining a real mechanical benefit from wielding the second sword. Normally, you’d have to spend an action to swap weapons (sheathing the sword as your one free item interaction, action to draw the second), but since you already have the weapon out, you get to make an attack when you otherwise wouldn’t be able to. Even without the specific details of your example, I’d argue that just having the OPTION of attacking with a different weapon is a real benefit.
Obviously your GM is welcome to let you do it, but rules as written disallow it (“wield” is not actually at all an ambiguous word) and it’s not true that you’d gain no benefit.
You make a good point. Do many tables pay attention to the actions involved swapping weapons? It’s never been a huge thing in my experience. Likely why I didn’t see much of an issue outside of triggering effects of certain abilities and feats.
Switching weapons in combat isn't something that happens much at my table. Maybe going from a ranged to a melee weapon or vice versa, but typically that only happens once if at all in a given encounter.
You make a good point. Do many tables pay attention to the actions involved swapping weapons? It’s never been a huge thing in my experience. Likely why I didn’t see much of an issue outside of triggering effects of certain abilities and feats.
I try to keep track of that and remind players, but like Devin mentioned, it really doesn't happen often.
You can switch weapons without an action, but it requires planning ahead or leaving one on the ground. You can attack, then sheath your weapon, then the next turn draw a different one. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can drop your weapon and draw a new one.
Could someone with two weapons be able to slash with both weapons simultaneously, like bringing both weapons close to each other and take sort of a baseball swing with both in the same motion? And if so, would it count as 1 attack or 2 as it is both one motion as well as two weapons? As well as, would you deal 1 weapon's damage or both?
Could someone with two weapons be able to slash with both weapons simultaneously, like bringing both weapons close to each other and take sort of a baseball swing with both in the same motion? And if so, would it count as 1 attack or 2 as it is both one motion as well as two weapons? As well as, would you deal 1 weapon's damage or both?
There are no rules for that. It would be up to DM to house rule.
Could someone with two weapons be able to slash with both weapons simultaneously, like bringing both weapons close to each other and take sort of a baseball swing with both in the same motion? And if so, would it count as 1 attack or 2 as it is both one motion as well as two weapons? As well as, would you deal 1 weapon's damage or both?
There are no rules for that. It would be up to DM to house rule.
Well, there actually is. Its answered in post 2 of this thread. If you are wielding a weapon in both hands each weapon would have to be rolled separately even if you are attacking the same target at the same time. You still have to get past the AC of the target to do any damage on each weapon.
Could someone with two weapons be able to slash with both weapons simultaneously, like bringing both weapons close to each other and take sort of a baseball swing with both in the same motion? And if so, would it count as 1 attack or 2 as it is both one motion as well as two weapons? As well as, would you deal 1 weapon's damage or both?
One weapon; one attack, regardless of how you choose to describe it narratively. If you are wanting to use both weapons as one attack, the rules prohibit that.
If you have two or more attacks per Attack action (Extra Attack), and make two of your available attacks against the same target, with one weapon for each attack, rolling to resolve hit/damage for each independently, you can certainly describe the narrative as having made a synchronized swing.
The attack would in no way involve the held weapon, gain no benefits from the weapon.
For example, a fighter has two swords. One that deals fire damage, one that deals cold damage. He attacks twice with extra attack using the fire blade. Noticing the creature has resistance to fire damage, on his next turn he attacks with the cold blade for his two attacks. When one blade is the only weapon being used, the other blade would be lowered, possibly allowing for the dueling fighting style to add its damage as only one weapon was wielded.
I would think dueling does not apply if the fighter decided to make one weapon attack with each blade on the same attack action.
Dual wielding and defensive duelist feats both state you have to be wielding a weapon to gain their benefits. Taking any benefit from these would prevent dueling’s +2 damage as you have to consider yourself wielding the weapon to do so.
Going just by “what words mean,” if you’re holding the weapon in your hand such that you [i]can[/i] attack properly with it, you’re wielding it.
Additionally, in your example, even if you don’t attack, you are gaining a real mechanical benefit from wielding the second sword. Normally, you’d have to spend an action to swap weapons (sheathing the sword as your one free item interaction, action to draw the second), but since you already have the weapon out, you get to make an attack when you otherwise wouldn’t be able to. Even without the specific details of your example, I’d argue that just having the OPTION of attacking with a different weapon is a real benefit.
Obviously your GM is welcome to let you do it, but rules as written disallow it (“wield” is not actually at all an ambiguous word) and it’s not true that you’d gain no benefit.
If you're (correctly) holding two weapons, you're wielding two weapons, regardless of how you do or don't actually use them, and are to be treated as wielding two weapons for any features/rules that are relevant.
I know I'm far from being the only DM that has experienced the "I'm not going to do (x), I just want to describe (y) as (x); I'm doing (x)" scenario before.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are no rules for a main hand or offhand in 5e.
Can a character hold two one handed weapons at the same time and choose which weapon to use with their attack action? Additionally, can a character with multiattack use either weapon once and apply their modifier to both damage rolls?
Does anything change if one or both weapons are not light?
I am not interested in making bonus action attacks with the weapons.
A) YES. You can hold two one-handed weapons and choose which weapon to use with your Attack action. If you have the "Extra Attack" feature from your class you can even switch between attacks. Both of those attacks would use your modifier.
However, if you do not have the Extra Attack feature, you can only make one attack per turn, which means you choose which weapon you are using for that one attack. Whichever one of those attacks you decide to make would use your modifier.
2) NO. There is no such thing as "multiattack" for player characters in the 5th edition rules. Some monsters have multiattack, as it is a monster feature. Unless you are a wildshaped Druid or polymorphed character, you will very likely not have access to multiattack.
3) NO. The only thing that requires both weapons be light is Two Weapon Fighting, cited below. As long as both weapons can be wielded with one hand, you could wield them both, you just could not take advantage of either weapon for Two Weapon Fighting, which requires both be light melee weapons.
The only other way to use both weapons is from the effect of Two Weapon Fighting, which uses your bonus action. I know you're not interested in using your bonus action, but here's the rule for clarity:
Thank you, that clarified everything! I had meant the extra attack feature when i said multi attack.
This is quite confusing. Do you mean 1st level rogue cant attack two times per turn? Two daggers for example. Fighter gains Extra attack at level 5 for example.
My current projects, One click download PDFs:
- Clam Island campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/By3s5Uqqf (Levels 1-4)
- Frostglade Tundra campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SyZ_4eEyKE (Levels 1-4)
- Goldfish Archipelago campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-3HajWXM (Sequel to Clam Island, Levels 5-8)
Daggers are light melee weapons. A rogue at 1st level could attack with one dagger as their action, and then as a bonus action use Two Weapon Fighting:
If they do, they can't use their Bonus Action for something else.
Ok, thanks now I found the actual mechanic from Player's Handbook, page 195:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Page 189:
BONUS ACTIONS
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take. You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so
you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available. You choose when to take a bonus action during your
turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
My current projects, One click download PDFs:
- Clam Island campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/By3s5Uqqf (Levels 1-4)
- Frostglade Tundra campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SyZ_4eEyKE (Levels 1-4)
- Goldfish Archipelago campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-3HajWXM (Sequel to Clam Island, Levels 5-8)
As a follow up question, does holding two weapons but only using one for any attack action (with no two weapon fighting bonus action) count against the duelling fighting style? Which states you can only wield one weapon to gain the bonus damage.
In short, how is the term wielding determined?
Other areas that wielding may affect things is if a monk picks up and holds a non monk weapon, does this count as wielding it if no attacks are made with it. Can the monk still use unarmed attacks and subsequent bonus action attacks from the martial arts feature? It states that while you are unarmed and wielding only monk weapons, you gain the benefits from martial arts.
To further complicate things, can that monk be holding two weapons and not use them for attacks (essentially treating them like any item), while making unarmed attacks and still gaining the benefits of martial arts. Unarmed strikes need not be made with fists, but could be kicks, elbows or even a head butt.
Holding a weapon and not attacking with it might be best discussed with your DM, barring a better answer with a source backing the ruling. I would certainly allow it provided that you clarified that you were attacking with something other than that hand that carried the weapon. Attacks made with that hand would be very dependent on how you worded the attack about how I would rule it.
I'm learning towards no on the dueling fighting stance, but I would want to read the rules on that and probably need to hear how you described the attack. I could conceive of a scenario where I wouldn't hold it against you, since shields can be used with the dueling style. Additionally, I'd probably consider the weapon being held when making the attack, since some weapons are heavier and a touch unwieldy.
The attack would in no way involve the held weapon, gain no benefits from the weapon.
For example, a fighter has two swords. One that deals fire damage, one that deals cold damage. He attacks twice with extra attack using the fire blade. Noticing the creature has resistance to fire damage, on his next turn he attacks with the cold blade for his two attacks. When one blade is the only weapon being used, the other blade would be lowered, possibly allowing for the dueling fighting style to add its damage as only one weapon was wielded.
I would think dueling does not apply if the fighter decided to make one weapon attack with each blade on the same attack action.
Dual wielding and defensive duelist feats both state you have to be wielding a weapon to gain their benefits. Taking any benefit from these would prevent dueling’s +2 damage as you have to consider yourself wielding the weapon to do so.
Going just by “what words mean,” if you’re holding the weapon in your hand such that you [i]can[/i] attack properly with it, you’re wielding it.
Additionally, in your example, even if you don’t attack, you are gaining a real mechanical benefit from wielding the second sword. Normally, you’d have to spend an action to swap weapons (sheathing the sword as your one free item interaction, action to draw the second), but since you already have the weapon out, you get to make an attack when you otherwise wouldn’t be able to. Even without the specific details of your example, I’d argue that just having the OPTION of attacking with a different weapon is a real benefit.
Obviously your GM is welcome to let you do it, but rules as written disallow it (“wield” is not actually at all an ambiguous word) and it’s not true that you’d gain no benefit.
You make a good point. Do many tables pay attention to the actions involved swapping weapons? It’s never been a huge thing in my experience. Likely why I didn’t see much of an issue outside of triggering effects of certain abilities and feats.
Switching weapons in combat isn't something that happens much at my table. Maybe going from a ranged to a melee weapon or vice versa, but typically that only happens once if at all in a given encounter.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I try to keep track of that and remind players, but like Devin mentioned, it really doesn't happen often.
You can switch weapons without an action, but it requires planning ahead or leaving one on the ground. You can attack, then sheath your weapon, then the next turn draw a different one. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can drop your weapon and draw a new one.
Could someone with two weapons be able to slash with both weapons simultaneously, like bringing both weapons close to each other and take sort of a baseball swing with both in the same motion? And if so, would it count as 1 attack or 2 as it is both one motion as well as two weapons? As well as, would you deal 1 weapon's damage or both?
There are no rules for that. It would be up to DM to house rule.
Well, there actually is. Its answered in post 2 of this thread. If you are wielding a weapon in both hands each weapon would have to be rolled separately even if you are attacking the same target at the same time. You still have to get past the AC of the target to do any damage on each weapon.
It would fall under the two weapon fighting rules.
If the weapons are not light you would not be able to make attacks with both.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
One weapon; one attack, regardless of how you choose to describe it narratively. If you are wanting to use both weapons as one attack, the rules prohibit that.
If you have two or more attacks per Attack action (Extra Attack), and make two of your available attacks against the same target, with one weapon for each attack, rolling to resolve hit/damage for each independently, you can certainly describe the narrative as having made a synchronized swing.
TBH, I'm with what Saga said overall.
If you're (correctly) holding two weapons, you're wielding two weapons, regardless of how you do or don't actually use them, and are to be treated as wielding two weapons for any features/rules that are relevant.
I know I'm far from being the only DM that has experienced the "I'm not going to do (x), I just want to describe (y) as (x); I'm doing (x)" scenario before.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.